Tag Archives: square feet

McMansions are too costly in terms of money and relationships

Posted on by

In another article about McMansions in Australia (and I have been seeing more and more of these  – perhaps due to the recent news that the country has the largest new homes on average), one writer suggests McMansions cost too much and have a negative impact on relationships:

Australians live in the world’s biggest homes but new research shows our trend to upsize our living space is reversing. The average size of new houses being built in this country is getting smaller as people start to realise that living in a McMansion does not make sense. While the financial implications of owning a large home have surely been considered, there are other costs that are not as obvious…

The reasons are obvious- it costs too much. Far from being energy efficient, the financial burden that comes with a bigger pad can weigh too heavily on a household already struggling to keep up with the rising cost of living. There are bigger gas and power bills and mortgage repayments not to mention the hassle of having to spend time and money maintaining and keeping the whole thing clean … no wonder we are thinking again.

Another problem of the larger, have-it-all home is that we have less need to leave it to meet our daily needs. Social interaction is being replaced by home-based activity for our convenience. It is easier to get on the treadmill, ‘chat’ to someone on Facebook, play tennis on the wii and shop online instead of getting out into our communities.

There is no substitute for real communication and the lack of it can affect our sense of well-being. Mental health issues such as depression and the feeling of isolation that many people experience is the reason some programs are being developed, specifically aiming to get people out of the house, talking to others and active in their communities. ‘The Shed’ for men and ‘R U OK’ Day are a couple of examples.

The financial costs of McMansions are clear, particularly if you include costs beyond the price of the home and consider the impact on other areas like cars, roads, infrastructure, and filling/furnishing a larger home.

The relational impact of McMansions has also been covered by others, particularly since they seem to encourage more private lives. But, my mind jumped to the next step in the argument illustrated in this article: how small would houses need to be in order to encourage interaction even among family members? If a McMansion is roughly 3,000-6,000 square feet, it seems like it would be fairly easy for family members to avoid each other. But, if a home is 2,000 square feet, would families necessarily interact more? Perhaps if we went back to the era of Levittown sized homes, around 900 square feet, this could induce some interaction.

But even in smaller homes, there are other factors at work. At the end of the article, the writer suggests that perhaps the real problem isn’t the size of the home:

I am conscious of creating an environment where communication is encouraged and valued so we know what’s going on in each other’s lives. There are no computers, TVs or other electronic entertainment in the bedrooms. Our living space is used for meals, games, entertainment, homework and handstands. It’s a bit cluttered but it’s homely and there’s always someone to talk to.

Technology could play a role as could cultural ideas about the need for “time alone.”

In the end, a smaller home probably increases the number of times people have to run into each other but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will have deeper, more meaningful relationships. There are larger issues at work here beyond the number of square feet a home has or whether the home has a porch close to the street.

New American homes might be smaller but are still bigger and nicer than the past

Posted on by

Some commentators have taken the US Census data that says new American homes are smaller than they were at the 2007 peak as evidence that the McMansion era is over and Americans will live in smaller homes in the future. While it may be difficult to make predictions about the future (and Americans still have large homes compared to world standards), there is another way to look at the data: the new houses of 2010 are much bigger and nicer than new homes several decades ago.

According to the data, the average new, single-family home built in 2010 was 2,392 square feet. That’s down somewhat from a McMansion-inflated high of 2,521 square feet in 2007, but still up significantly from three decades ago.

In 1980, the average new home was just 1,740 square feet, according to the Census.

Our homes also have gotten a lot more comfortable. For example, in 1980, 63 percent of new homes had central air conditioning. Last year, 88 percent of them did.

In 1980, more than one-quarter of all homes built had 1.5 bathrooms or less. Last year, just 8 percent of houses had such a small number of bathrooms.

This is quite a change from 1980, suggesting that homes have changed quite a bit in the span or just one or two generations.

Questions that come to mind when considering this historical change:

1. Would those who suggest American homes will get smaller in the future suspect that homes will go back to 1980 sizes by 2040?

2. Does anyone expect that Americans will give up amenities, such as multiple bathrooms, on the way to having smaller homes?

3. If the answer to the first two questions is no, what might the new home of 2040 look like? A little bit smaller, say 2,000 square feet, but packed with features?

A $32 million home with 27,000 square feet is not a McMansion

Posted on by

When I started studying the use of the term McMansion years ago, I didn’t expect to run into this problem: how big does a house have to be in order to be called a McMansion? Sometimes the question is on the lower end but lately, I have run into a number of articles suggesting that really large houses are McMansions. Here is another example:

Going, going, gone will be music to Sherwin and Deborah Jarol’s ears when their palatial estate is auctioned off on October 29. The couple have been unable to find a buyer for their lavish Chicago area mcmansion dubbed “Le Grand Reve,” which has been on and off the market with numerous price chops since the summer 2010…

This home isn’t messing around — the crib measures an incredible 27,000 square feet and includes this luxurious entryway and two story rotunda that looks like it belongs in a real palace.

As I’ve argued before about similar homes, this house is far beyond McMansion status. It is simply a mansion. This isn’t about the average suburban nouveau riche looking for a status symbol or a cookie-cutter suburban neighborhood or having a garish home (though one wonders if it is possible to live in the style that the interior of the home is decorated in). This is the sort of home only available to the mega-rich.

Here is the real estate listing for the home. Any surprise that it is in Winnetka?

(Perhaps the gallery offers a way out: a picture later in the show says, “The mansion features six bedrooms, all as wonderfully opulent as this one.” Did two people write the captions? Can you have it both ways?)

International Furnishings and Design Association survey also suggests McMansions are on the way out

Posted on by

A number of commentators have suggested the era of McMansions is over. A new survey of the American members of the International Furnishings and Design Association agrees with this prediction. Here are some of the findings:

-Americans will be living in smaller spaces with fewer rooms by the year 2020, say more than 76% of IFDA members. Eleven years ago, only 49% foresaw less living space in our future…

-Separate rooms are disappearing; they are blending into spaces that serve many different purposes, believe 91.5% of the design experts – which is exactly what they foresaw back in 2000.

-Furniture also is going multipurpose, say 67.5% of the the IFDA forecasters. They see modular, moveable, and smaller-scaled furniture overtaking built-ins and big pieces. There will be more interest in ergonomic designs – designed to fit the human body – but almost none in furniture designed to be disposable…

-Everyone’s working at home. A home office is a given, say more than three-quarters of the respondents, but here’s the news: Nearly 40% of the forecasters see more than one home office under every roof…

In summary: leaders in the furnishings and design field think that Americans will be living in smaller, more multipurpose spaces.

Several questions regarding these survey findings:
1. How much do those surveyed get to set and sell these product changes in the years to come?
2. If the economy improves dramatically in the next few years, are all these predictions moot?
3. How long before these predictions and ideas become the norm set before average Americans in places like furniture showrooms or on HGTV?
4. What do you do with previous findings of the survey?
a. For example, in 2000, roughly half surveyed thought Americans would be living in smaller spaces. The actual Census numbers about new single-family homes: on average, they were 2,266 square feet, 2,438 square feet in 2009, and 2,392 square feet in 2010. This is still a net gain over most of the decade with a dip between 2008 and 2010. So half of those surveyed in 2000 were wrong?
b. The predictions about the drop in separate rooms were the same now as in 2000. Were they right?
c. If those surveyed can be wrong, what does it mean? Do their companies/firms lose money because they mispredicted the future? Is it really difficult to predict the directions in this particular field and anticipate what the American consumer wants?

How a 6,000 square foot Robert A.M. Stern home in East Hampton escapes being called a McMansion

Posted on by

A basic component of the term McMansion is a large house. But this defense of a large Robert A.M. Stern home in East Hampton shows that this isn’t a necessary component of the term McMansion:

Looking past the seven bedrooms, this Brown Harris Stevens listing on Lee Avenue in East Hampton seems to be an antidote to the McMansion trend currently occurring in the ‘Gauche-ing over’ of the East End, making a seemingly cozy use of its 6,000 square feet…

From the language in the listing, the fully screened-in porch is the work of Robert A.M. Stern (the listing says “Robert Stern” but we’re going to assume that they’ve left the A.M. off for those ‘in the know”), making it a nice, neighboring companion piece to the library and town hall that Yale’s dean of architecture has designed for East Hampton over the last 20 years.

So, while the deck—and attached house—will run you $6.5 million, you will be getting an adorable piece of early 20th century living with a late 20th century porch on roughly an acre of land in the tony Georgica section of East Hampton.

Perhaps I am just being cynical but it sounds like this home is not a McMansion simply because it was designed by a well-known architect. Because of this, it is better quality and more aesthetically pleasing.

If you look at the slideshow pictures, the home does seem to avoid some McMansion design features: no pretentious columns or two-story foyers; the rooms have some traditional features; and the kitchen is not full of granite countertops, a Viking stove, or a Sub-Zero refrigerator (at least as far as we can see).

Still, it is a 6,000 square foot home. Can that much space really be cozy? Only in places like the Hamptons could this size home seem restrained. What about arguments that all big homes are bad (large homes don’t fit with other green products) or need to be regulated (see this recent discussion in Australia)?

Data suggests we have not reached a new McMansion era

Posted on by

Curbed National summarizes a Wall Street Journal story in a post titled about McMansions Return:

During the economic downturn, McMansion-style housing projects largely fell by the wayside, with average house size shrinking steadily over the past four years. Well, according to new data compiled by the National Association of Home Builders, the Mickey-Ds approach to home building is making a comeback this year. Please, no.

If you were just reading this quick summary, you might think McMansions are “making a comeback.” But the data cited in the Wall Street Journal story doesn’t quite say this:

But the Home Design Trend Survey, released today by the American Institute of Architects, shows a slight change from previous years on home size and buyer sentiment.

The survey, which has been conducted quarterly since 2005, asks a panel of 500 architectural firms that focus on residential properties what customers are asking for in new developments. The percentage reporting that customers wanted smaller houses has seemingly started to drop.

This year, about 52% of firms surveyed reported a decrease in the square footage of the houses they’re designing this year, down from 57% last year. Today’s numbers also show fewer firms reporting decreases in lot size (down to 22 percent from 32 percent) and lot volume (down to 18 percent from 21 percent).

“Overall, home-and-lot sizes showing signs of increasing slightly indicates that the housing market is stabilizing after being in a downward spiral since 2007,” says Kermit Baker, AIA’s chief economist.

So it’s not that homes are getting larger; rather, the decrease in size over the last few years is slowing. The downward trend line is plateauing. This does not necessarily mean that it will go up soon – as Baker suggests, perhaps housing is just “stabilizing.” Both headlines, the Wall Street Journal post is titled “Are McMansions Coming Back in Style,” seem pretty sensationalistic by suggesting McMansions are once again going to be the norm when the data really doesn’t say this.

Also: the WSJ story throws in a paragraph about an uptick in outdoor kitchens. While the rest of the story suggests McMansions are all about size and square footage, this add-in suggests McMansions also are luxurious homes. I would be curious to know how often outside kitchens are used by homeowners that have them.

Between the mansion and McMansion: the “maxi-McMansion”

Posted on by

Despite the widespread use of the term McMansion, it is often unclear how large (or small) a McMansion typically is. The description of a home in Westport, Connecticut illustrates this issue:

I’d like to share with you what, specifically, brought home the extraordinary disparity between rich and poor in America. Last Friday’s Westport News published a headline on top of the Real Estate page that read: “Waterfront colonial offers ocean waves, scenic views.”

The caption under the photo of the Maxi-McMansion added, “The16-room, 9,682-square-foot colonial features 175 feet of shoreline footage and its own private deep-water dock in a protected cove.”

The asking price? A tidy $9.25 million!

I am not picking on this house alone. Million dollar homes in our town are like pebbles on the beach: too numerous to count. Routinely, homes in Westport today — at the bottom of what is reportedly another dip in national prices — sell for for $1,970,000, or $1,805,000, or $1,070,000, just to list just a on that same page Friday under “Property Transfers.”

I would suggest that a home of nearly 10,000 square feet is really a mansion as it is far beyond the average new house size of roughly 2,400 square feet. There are relatively few homes of 10,000 square feet or more built in America each year.

So what might make this home a McMansion? Perhaps it is the architecture: we are simply told this is a colonial. If you look at the actual real estate listing for this house (I’m pretty sure this is it – it matches the price, square footage, and waterfront location), the house does have a punctuated front with a lot of protruding pieces. Perhaps it is the luxury of the home – but that could also make it a mansion. This would make some sense as the larger article is about the gap between the rich and poor in America and this home is an illustration how some are still profiting while many Americans are struggling. Perhaps the home is part of a development of newer, mass-produced mansions – a satellite view on Google Maps does suggest there are similar homes nearby. Does this suggest that these are all teardown homes?

I’m still not sure why this home isn’t simply called a mansion rather than a “maxi-McMansion.” If I had to select one option from the ones I’ve presented, I would guess that the author wants to imply that such homes are examples of the easily-reproduced luxuries that the super-rich can purchase. Calling the home a mansion would imply an older structure and perhaps old money.

Homes still large in New Zealand

Posted on by

While new American homes have gotten smaller and this trend might continue into the future (I wrote about a piece in Slate that has been getting a lot of attention on this front), homes in New Zealand had also increased in size in recent decades though this might change in the near future:

Latest research from Quotable Value puts the average size of a home built since 2010 at 205 square metres, against just 142.4 square metres in 1980.

Quotable Value research director Jonno Ingerson said much of the increase could be put down to a rise in the construction of four bedroom homes, particularly during the last 20 years…

However significant increases in the cost of building in recent years meant the rate of growth was now slowing, suggesting homes may not get much larger, he said.

“There is also a push by some of the larger city councils to encourage medium density housing in fringe city suburbs. This type of housing will have smaller floor areas than the traditional suburban family homes that have been built over the last 20 years.”

It sounds like similar trends are taking place in New Zealand.

Several years ago, I had read a number of books comparing housing in the United States to European countries. While there are often clear differences there, it would be interesting to see recent research or books comparing the US housing market to that of Australia and New Zealand where bigger houses had also become the norm in recent decades. Will all three countries end up following a similar path toward smaller homes?

11,000 square foot NYC homes designed by a noted architect qualify as McMansions?

Posted on by

Villanova Heights is a newer residential development in the Bronx, New York City. Despite being designed by noted architect Robert A.M Stern, Curbed NY says even the smallest homes in the development are McMansions:

We’ve occasionally mentioned Villanova Heights, the McMansion community in Riverdale designed by Robert A.M. Stern. And by McMansions, we mean houses that aren’t only huge in comparison to Manhattan apartments—the smallest Bobby A.M. creations in Villanova Heights are around 11,000 square feet. The rents are similarly hefty, with the first two completed homes in the development renting for $13,000 and $16,000 per month. Now we’re finally getting a peek inside one of these things, with the new listing for 5020 Iselin Avenue, an 11,000-square-footer on a 25,000-square-foot lot that contains a heated swimming pool and cabana. In fact, we’d be amazed if there were anything this house didn’t contain. When it comes to Riverdale, though, this one’s still our favorite.

Two things strike me here:

1. The homes are at least 11,000 square feet. This is more like a mansion, not just a McMansion. Percentage-wise, very few American homes are that large. When people typically refer to suburban McMansions, they are thinking of homes that are 3,500 to 5,000 square feet.

2. The neighborhood is designed by a noted architect and yet the houses are still called McMansions. One major criticism of McMansion is that they lack tasteful design or more authentic materials. So is this more of a criticism of Stern’s home designs than anything else? Stern is a noted architect but designs McMansions?

This is how the Villanova Heights website describes the home design philosophy:

In developing Villanova Heights, Robert A.M. Stern Architects has adhered to its philosophy that the residences designed “do not, by their very being, threaten the esthetic and cultural values of the buildings around them.” Further, that no one style “is appropriate to every building and every place.” Finally, consistent with Robert A.M. Stern’s belief in the continuity of tradition, his firm’s work on Villanova Heights is driven “by entering into a dialogue with the past and with the spirit of the places in which we build.”

Does this sound like a description of a McMansion?

“Shunning the McMansion”

Posted on by

Earlier this week, US News & World Report ran a story titled “Why We’re Shunning the McMansion.” Here seems to be the main data in this article:

Only 9 percent of consumers surveyed said they wanted a home 3,200 square feet or larger, according to a recent study by the NAR, while the majority of house hunters—about 55 percent—preferred homes in the 1,400 to 2,600 square-foot range. Builders also plan to scale back new home sizes as well, with 9 out of 10 builders expecting to build smaller, lower-priced homes in the coming years, according to a study by the NAHB.

Despite the drop in desired median home square footage, Melman says it’s not so much a matter of downsizing as “right-sizing”—forgoing larger homes with unused space for smaller, more efficient and well-laid-out homes. Americans are reconsidering the notion of financially stretching themselves to the limit to purchase a large home. “The trend here is shelter value,” he says. “Affordability is driving the decisions. If you buy a home that’s a little bit smaller, that’s one way to get some control over energy costs and the overall costs of the home.”

The article goes on to say more about how affordability is the primary driver of this trend, particularly due to increased difficulties in obtaining mortgages.

Several things strike me in this summary:

1. What is the percentage of Americans surveyed who said they wanted a home between 2,600 and 3,200 square feet? If we knew this percentage, we could add this to the 9 percent who want a home bigger than 3,200 square feet. Why not say what percentage of Americans want a home bigger than the average new house size of roughly 2,450 square feet? Also, to better make this point, it would be helpful to compare this data to earlier surveys about what size homes Americans want.

2. I still would be interested in seeing some data about how much cheaper these smaller homes are. If one wants a smaller home but wants a lot of features, that still might cost quite a bit. And might we see some of the design trends of bigger homes, such as stucco exteriors or always-on gas lamps, trickle down to these smaller homes?

3. The article seems to set the size of McMansions at 3,200 feet and above. So all homes with this square-footage or above are automatically a McMansion?